Hall of Fame

Are we sure it's not just a function of a decade of players lacking talent? I mean, what if the current generation ends up dominating the lost gen and we end up with fewer 30+ year olds in the top 100 ten years from now? How will people spin that one?

Dude, we have all seen the numbers. You have posted it like 10 times. They clearly show that ages don't mean the same. We get it, the game in which the quality decreases has increased significantly over the years.

Now, like many others have said, how many over 35? How many are still making slam finals at 38?

Hall of Fame

Dude, we have all seen the numbers. You have posted it like 10 times. They clearly show that ages don't mean the same. We get it, the game in which the quality decreases has increased significantly over the years.

Now, like many others have said, how many over 35? How many are still making slam finals at 38?

Hall of Fame

Legend

Still no top 10 players aged 35+ other than Federer. Berdych, Ferrer, Tsonga all beset with injuries and permanently declined. Murray, del Potro badly struggling with injuries, unlikely to reach the top again. Wawrinka has struggled, back to top 30 now but making the top 10 is dubious. Djokodal will likely join Fred a few years later but that's it.

G.O.A.T.

I've been saying this for years, that a huge age shift had taken place in tennis in this decade. The Great Age Shift. GAS. You heard it here first.

Which means - for example - that RF being 38 isn't nearly the big deal it would have been in the 90s or 80s. It is admirable and amazing but not THAT amazing.

It also means that we cannot moan too much about 23 year-olds not winning slams anymore, because it's a completely different ballgame in modern pro tennis, with guys playing their best tennis at around 30 - give or take a few years. Wawrinka and Anderson are just two examples.

In other words, 27-34 (roughly speaking) may have become the new peak/prime/shmeep as opposed to the past eras when it was quite clearly 20-25.

Players used to drop their form at around 27-29, then retire at 30 or 31, roughly speaking. Now they are kicking ass at 30, and doing very well or reasonably well at 35 even, which would have been very rare in past eras. Agassi, Newcombe and Connors were exceptions.

We need to finally acknowledge this age shift (as much as it may annoy some RF fans who have a fetish for agism and age-related excuses), which may even be much greater than Lendl suggested (off the cuff probably). We cannot glorify RF for being a top player at 38 the way we would have done in 1993. That's just a fact.

Nor can we mock young players for not slaying the Big 3 at age 21 - which would have been normal in 1991 when 21 year-olds killed the veterans regularly.

And another thing: this is the first time in the Open Era (or probably ever) that no player younger than 31 has a slam title!!! If that fact doesn't convince you of the Great Age Shift (GAS), then nothing will, and perhaps you are in denial?

Talk Tennis Guru

Dude, we have all seen the numbers. You have posted it like 10 times. They clearly show that ages don't mean the same. We get it, the game in which the quality decreases has increased significantly over the years.

Now, like many others have said, how many over 35? How many are still making slam finals at 38?

What you need to do is plot player careers over time and see when they have their best years. It's almost all in the 20s, and basically no absolute top players achieving career highs in their 30s, and those that do don't even improve their stats.

Its easy to put the blame on 33+ Big 3 when its evident almost all of those mentioned in your post are not even active at the moment. The TV talkies don't want to put all the blame on the "I deserve everything by doing almost nothing" Next Gen. It won't look nice for the ATP. Not that it does even now.

New User

I've been saying this for years, that a huge age shift had taken place in tennis in this decade. The Great Age Shift. GAS. You heard it here first.

Which means - for example - that RF being 38 isn't nearly the big deal it would have been in the 90s or 80s. It is admirable and amazing but not THAT amazing.

It also means that we cannot moan too much about 23 year-olds not winning slams anymore, because it's a completely different ballgame in modern pro tennis, with guys playing their best tennis at around 30 - give or take a few years. Wawrinka and Anderson are just two examples.

In other words, 27-34 (roughly speaking) may have become the new peak/prime/shmeep as opposed to the past eras when it was quite clearly 20-25.

Players used to drop their form at around 27-29, then retire at 30 or 31, roughly speaking. Now they are kicking ass at 30, and doing very well or reasonably well at 35 even, which would have been very rare in past eras. Agassi, Newcombe and Connors were exceptions.

We need to finally acknowledge this age shift (as much as it may annoy some RF fans who have a fetish for agism and age-related excuses), which may even be much greater than Lendl suggested (off the cuff probably). We cannot glorify RF for being a top player at 38 the way we would have done in 1993. That's just a fact.

Nor can we mock young players for not slaying the Big 3 at age 21 - which would have been normal in 1991 when 21 year-olds killed the veterans regularly.

And another thing: this is the first time in the Open Era (or probably ever) that no player younger than 31 has a slam title!!! If that fact doesn't convince you of the Great Age Shift (GAS), then nothing will, and perhaps you are in denial?

G.O.A.T.

Good grief, whatever Roger is doing right now is a preview of what many other players will do in the future. His success right now is possible good news for Djoval, which Djokovic already acknowledged recently in public. There is no reason to mock or try to diminish what he is currently doing, but what the other two are doing is going under the wire more than a little bit. And while people try to make out that the WTA is a different thing, there is and always has been a huge difference between the time line at which a woman's and man's body develops over time. Even so, what SW is doing right now, after having a child, carrying extra weight, no longer moving her best, should also be a wake-up call.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

I've been saying this for years, that a huge age shift had taken place in tennis in this decade. The Great Age Shift. GAS. You heard it here first.

Which means - for example - that RF being 38 isn't nearly the big deal it would have been in the 90s or 80s. It is admirable and amazing but not THAT amazing.

It also means that we cannot moan too much about 23 year-olds not winning slams anymore, because it's a completely different ballgame in modern pro tennis, with guys playing their best tennis at around 30 - give or take a few years. Wawrinka and Anderson are just two examples.

In other words, 27-34 (roughly speaking) may have become the new peak/prime/shmeep as opposed to the past eras when it was quite clearly 20-25.

Players used to drop their form at around 27-29, then retire at 30 or 31, roughly speaking. Now they are kicking ass at 30, and doing very well or reasonably well at 35 even, which would have been very rare in past eras. Agassi, Newcombe and Connors were exceptions.

We need to finally acknowledge this age shift (as much as it may annoy some RF fans who have a fetish for agism and age-related excuses), which may even be much greater than Lendl suggested (off the cuff probably). We cannot glorify RF for being a top player at 38 the way we would have done in 1993. That's just a fact.

Nor can we mock young players for not slaying the Big 3 at age 21 - which would have been normal in 1991 when 21 year-olds killed the veterans regularly.

And another thing: this is the first time in the Open Era (or probably ever) that no player younger than 31 has a slam title!!! If that fact doesn't convince you of the Great Age Shift (GAS), then nothing will, and perhaps you are in denial?

Yes, I generally agree. There's definitely been an age shift. But, I think it's been magnified by the Big 3, meaning that while there's definitely a shift generally, they shift for the Big 3 is even bigger. To put it another way - I expect more players because of GAS to have their best Slam performances or win Slams later than in previous eras. But, I don't expect players generally to follow the Big 3 and still be winning Slams or having their best performances in their mid 30s. So, the average player now peaks later than previous eras, but I don't expect them to keep that up as long as the Big 3. GAS isn't universal at one level - I still think they'll still be plenty of players who "age out" around 30 (which is later than it used to be) and if they keep on playing won't ever get back to their peak level.

Did this make any sense, lol. The shift is real, but on average not as broad of a shift as it is for the Big 3.

Professional

This is not only happening in tennis, but in life in general. Nowadays a common woman in her late thirties is still looking for an economic stability and has no children, whereas in 1990 she would be a married lady with several kids

Bionic Poster

Deleted member 307496

Guest

I've been saying this for years, that a huge age shift had taken place in tennis in this decade. The Great Age Shift. GAS. You heard it here first.

Which means - for example - that RF being 38 isn't nearly the big deal it would have been in the 90s or 80s. It is admirable and amazing but not THAT amazing.

It also means that we cannot moan too much about 23 year-olds not winning slams anymore, because it's a completely different ballgame in modern pro tennis, with guys playing their best tennis at around 30 - give or take a few years. Wawrinka and Anderson are just two examples.

In other words, 27-34 (roughly speaking) may have become the new peak/prime/shmeep as opposed to the past eras when it was quite clearly 20-25.

Players used to drop their form at around 27-29, then retire at 30 or 31, roughly speaking. Now they are kicking ass at 30, and doing very well or reasonably well at 35 even, which would have been very rare in past eras. Agassi, Newcombe and Connors were exceptions.

We need to finally acknowledge this age shift (as much as it may annoy some RF fans who have a fetish for agism and age-related excuses), which may even be much greater than Lendl suggested (off the cuff probably). We cannot glorify RF for being a top player at 38 the way we would have done in 1993. That's just a fact.

Nor can we mock young players for not slaying the Big 3 at age 21 - which would have been normal in 1991 when 21 year-olds killed the veterans regularly.

And another thing: this is the first time in the Open Era (or probably ever) that no player younger than 31 has a slam title!!! If that fact doesn't convince you of the Great Age Shift (GAS), then nothing will, and perhaps you are in denial?

G.O.A.T.

The other guys look good. Mac and Wilander are pretty naturally small-framed and lithe - though they obviously take care of themselves. Boris, with his tree trunk legs and general natural thickness could have been a candidate to blow up, but he looks like he's stayed in shape.

Do you experience tennis personally, as if rackets were part of your body?

Relax, it's just a game, not a religion.

Never said Raonic's gen wasn't weak. It is. But we've had weak generations before. Nobody born between 1961-1964 won a slam, that's a whole 4 years. The 1977-1979 gen was crap too, just one slam title there. The 1989-94 generation hasn't done anything yet but one of them might.

And you can't deny the NUMBERS. The prove that age has gone up all across the board.